The judiciary is the guardian pillar of India’s democracy, protecting the Constitution and assuring justice to citizens. However, recently, the Supreme Court took a strong stance against the NCERT’s Class 8 Social Science textbook, imposing a complete ban on its printing, distribution, and circulation. The chapter on “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society” mentioned “corruption at various levels of the judiciary,” the high backlog of cases, the shortage of judges, and statements by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai. CJI Surya Kant termed this a “deep-rooted and deliberate conspiracy” to defame the judiciary and issued notices to the Ministry of Education and the NCERT Director, seeking their response.
The identity of the authors of the controversial chapter, their qualifications, and the minutes of the syllabus-framing meetings have been ordered. This incident not only raises questions about education policy but also raises a debate about the balance between institutional dignity, freedom of expression, and open discussion on corruption. Is such a discussion in the school curriculum wrong? Or is it a means to alert society?
The Indian Constitution provides for freedom of expression under Article 19(1), but Article 19(2) also provides reasonable restrictions, including contempt of court. The Supreme Court’s action falls under the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which makes material insulting the dignity of the judiciary punishable. The Court reasoned that the chapter was selective—prominently mentioning corruption in the judiciary, but not the legislature or the executive. Calling pending cases a “massive backlog” and challenging the shortage of judges undermined the institution.
The reference to former CJI Gavai’s statement was taken out of context and misleading. The Court called it a “deep-rooted conspiracy,” suggesting it may not be a mere academic oversight but a deliberate attempt. The inclusion of such material in the recently revised curriculum by NCERT demonstrates the Ministry of Education’s negligence. The lack of transparency in the meetings of the Syllabus Expert Committee has raised questions—were the authors motivated by political bias? The court has assured a thorough investigation, which is welcome.
Discussing corruption is essential for democracy. According to Transparency International, India’s Corruption Perception Index was 40/100 in 2025, highlighting the challenges facing institutions, including the judiciary. The Supreme Court itself has made scathing comments on corruption, such as in the Brahmavarta Hostel case or the medical admission scam. Justice J.S. Verma stated that “even one case of corruption in the judiciary tarnishes the entire institution.”
However, generalizing this in a school textbook is inappropriate. Children are 13-14 years old—give them factual knowledge, not biased perspectives. A chapter focusing on accountability, separation of powers, and reforms (such as fast-track courts and recruitment of judges) would have been useful. In its current form, it sows negativity, which could create distrust of the judiciary among the younger generation. In states like Haryana, where Panchayati Raj is strong, the local justice system is already struggling—such content will discourage rural children.
It’s natural to question the role of NCERT. The New Education Policy 2020 aimed to simplify the curriculum and make it more Indian-centric, but this controversy is having the opposite effect. The ministry should mandate multilateral consultations—including academics, judicial experts, and parent organizations—in framing the syllabus. Verify the qualifications of authors—are they political science experts or general educators? The court also ordered the seizure of digital copies, which is challenging in the cyber age. However, this step was necessary because misinformation could go viral. Senior lawyers like Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi described the findings in court as selective, which strengthens the debate. Now, if the investigation proves a conspiracy, those responsible will face contempt charges.
This case calls for comprehensive reforms. To prevent corruption in the judiciary, strengthen the National Judicial Commission (NJAC) to ensure transparent appointments of judges. Accelerate the e-court project to reduce the backlog of cases—currently over 50 million. Seek legislative consent to increase the number of judges. Address corruption in education as a chapter on ethics, not as an attack on a particular institution. Freedom of expression is important, but the dignity of the institution is paramount. The Supreme Court’s intervention is in the right direction—it is a warning that education should not breed corruption.
NCERT should revise the curriculum to ensure factual, balanced content. Governments should increase transparency—the syllabus process should be made public through RTI. The public should be aware, because a strong judiciary is a strong India. If the discussion on corruption leads to reform, it is welcome; otherwise, it is merely a conspiracy. A Supreme Court investigation will reveal the truth and strengthen the education system. Balance is the key to success in a democracy.
